V. I. Lenin

The Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.

JULY 17 (30)–AUGUST 10 (23), 1908

SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE AGRARIAN
PROGRAMME

AUGUST 1 (14)

Le n i n

tables this amendment: instead of “will work for”
insert “demands above
all”.{1}The reports during
the debates pointed out that the draft deliberately says “will work
for” in order to emphasise that we do net intend to do this now but in the
future. I motion this amendment to avoid giving ground for such
misunderstandings. By the words “above all” I mean that we haveotherdemands, apart from the agrarian programme.

Iobject to Comrade Lyadov’s
proposal.{2}We are not drafting a
law, but are merely giving general indications. There are those among the
townsfolk who also belong to the poll-tax paying estates; in addition, there are
the small tradesmen in the suburbs and others, and if we were to write all this
into our programme we should have to use the idiom of Volume IX of the Code of
Laws.

Ifind Martynov’s question
superfluous.{3}Instead of putting
forward general principles we are being forced into particulars. If we were to
do so, we should never come to the end of the Congress. The principle is quite
definite:
every peasant has the right to dispose of his land, whetherbelonging to the
communeorheld as private property. That is nothing but the
demand of the peasant’s right to dispose of his land. We insist that there
should be no special laws for the peasant; we want more than the right of
withdrawing from the commune. We are unable just now to decide on all the
particulars that may crop up in implementing this. I am against Comrade
Lange’s addendum; we cannot demand the abolition of all the laws governing
tenure. That is going too far.

Martynovmust be labouring under a misunderstanding. What we want is uniform
application of general legislation, the one now accepted in all the bourgeois
states, namely, that which is based on the principles of Roman law and which
recognises both personal and common property. We should like to regard communal
land-holdings as common property.

Weare engaged in the drafting of addenda to § 4 in respect of the
Caucasus. These addenda should be inserted after point a). There are two draft
resolutions. If we adopt Comrade Karsky’s amendment, the point will lose
heavily in concreteness. In the Urals, for instance, there is a hostof survivals; over there, there is a veritable reservation of
serfdom. Concerning the Latvians we could say that they fit the formula:
“and in other regions of the state”. I support Comrade
Kostrov’s proposal, namely: we must insert a demand for the transfer of
land titles to the khizani, the temporarily bound and
others.{4}

Paragraph 5is connected with paragraph 16 of the labour programme: this does
imply courts consisting equally of workers and employers; we must demand special
representation for the farm labourers and the poor

peasantry.{5}

Ibelieve this to be unnecessary, since it would extend the competence of the
courts out of all
proportion.{6}Our aim is to secure a reduction of
rents, but the establishment of tariffs would enable the landowners to argue
their case by referring to definite facts. The reduction of rent-prices rules
out any idea of their increase. Kautsky, speaking of Ireland, said that some
results were obtained there by the introduction of industrial courts.

{1}The amendment was motioned by Lenin during the discussion of the
preamble of the draft programme on the agrarian question, which said: “For
the purpose, however, of eliminating the survivals of the serf system,
which are a heavy burden on the peasants, and in the interests of the free
development of the class struggle in the countryside, the Party will work
for....” The Congress adopted the amendment.

p. 88

{2}The point at issue is § 1 of the draft programme on the agrarian
question, which contained a demand for the “abolition of land redemption
and quit-rent payments and all other services now borne by the peasants as
a poll-tax paying estate”. Lyadov proposed the addition: “or other rural
inhabitants, as poll-tax paying estates”. The amendment was rejected by
the Congress.

p. 89

{3}During the debate on § 2 of the draft programme on the agrarian
question, which spoke of the need to abolish collective liability and all
other laws hampering the peasant in his disposal of the land, Martynov
asked this question: “How are we to under stand the words: ‘his land’?”
He believed that two interpretations of this point were possible: “1)
every peasant has the right of redemption; in that case the interests of
the commune are not infringed; 2) every peasant has the right to
appropriate the land without redemption.” Following Lenin’s explanation,
Martynov spoke again and said that he was not thinking about particulars
but about the general principle: who was the owner of the land—the
commune or the peasant? He went on: “If it is the commune, then regarding
it as a constraint on economic development, westand for the right of redemption. If it is the peasant, there is no need
for redemption” (Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 235).

p. 89

{4}Paragraph 4 of the draft programme on the agrarian question contained a
demand for the “establishment of peasants’ committees:

a) for the restitution to the village communes (by expropriation or, when
the land has changed hands, by redemption by the state at the expense of
gentry-owned large landed estates) of the land cut off from the peasants
when serfdom was abolished and now used by the land lords as a means of
keeping the peasants in bondage; b) for the elimination of the survivals of
serf relations, which have been preserved in the Urals, in the Altai, in
the Western territory and in other regions of the state...”.

N. N.Jordania (Kostrov) motioned the following addendum to this point:
“for the transfer into the ownership of the peasants in the Caucasus of
the lands of which they have the use as temporarily bound, khizani, etc.”
(Vtoroi syezd R.S.D.R.P., 1959, p. 243). The second proposal was
motioned by B. M. Knunyants (Rusov) and M. N. Lyadov, who believed that it
was possible for the programme to confine itself to a general statement of
the need for eliminating the survivals of serf relations all over Russia.

Theamendment of D. A. Topuridze (Karsky), mentioned by Lenin in his
speech, was not entered in the minutes of the Congress.

TheCongress adopted Jordania’s addendum.

Khizani—thename given to the peasants of Georgia who
settled on the lands of the landowners on specially agreed terms. The
khizani were not officially regarded as serfs, and enjoyed personal
freedom, but remained perpetual tenants without any rights. The 1861
Peasant Reform did not apply to them and they continued to be completely
dependent on the landowners, who began to increase khizani services and
confiscate the land they held. The khizani system was abolished after the
Great October Socialist Revolution.

Temporarilybound peasants—the name given to those former
serf peasants who were compelled to perform certain services (quit-rent or
corvée) for the use of their land even after the abolition of
serfdom in 1861 and until they started paying redemption money to the
landowner for their allotments. From the moment the redemption contract was
concluded, the peasants ceased to be “temporarily bound” and became
“peasant property-owners”.

p. 90

{5}Paragraph 5 of the draft programme on the agrarian question spoke of
the need to empower the courts to reduce excessive rents and declare
invalid transactions of an enslaving character. § 16 of the section of
the draft programme dealing with labour protection contained the demand for
the establishment of industrial courts consisting of an equal number of
workers’ and employers’ representatives in every branch of the national
economy.

p. 90

{6}Lenin’s objection is against Lieber’s proposal to introduce into
§ 5 of the draft programme on the agrarian question the demand to
empower the courts to establish land-lease prices.

p. 90